I was telling a friend about this board, and trying to get him to join! As I was telling him about some of the rules, I came across the “no socks” rule, and he asked - how do they know?
So how do you know? From what I understand, a sock is someone who either normally posts and tried to register under another name, or someone who’s been banned or whose time runs out and registers under another name. Am I right? How do you guys ID these people?
This is what worries me. I use a public cybercafe. We get maybe 500 or so people a day in here and there’s loads of computers. There is a chance that a banned doper may come in, try and log in on a computer and be kicked off. If it’s done on the IP of the computer, then if I come in and log in, it may say that the IP I’m using has already been logged as a sock puppet. It seems unfair to ban people just for using the same computer that someone else has tried to register with before…
Yes, sockpupperty is the practice of posting under more than one name - this is not allowed on the SDMB. (Though you can have your username changed by a staff member (once!) if you like.)
There are some users who are roommates/spouses and share computers. Signing up form the same IP isn’t likely enough to get you banned.
Correct, wolfstu: we don’t ban IPs unless we have reasonably clear evidence that the only user(s) are undesirables.
How do we detect sock puppetry? A variety of ways. Lynn reads chicken entrails (which gets kinda messy on the keyboard), Coldfire detects them by smell (the online olfactory trail is quite clear to those keen of nose), and TubaDiva uses the latest in laser technology.
The staff are of course reluctant to say how they actually can identify them (I have some strong guesses, which I’m not going to share), but I think it is instructive to note that we had an instance about a year ago where a husband and wife were posting here, the husband was banned and the wife continued posting for a while (ultimately going inactive).
Well one way I can sometimes tell, if there are little quirks that are the same for several seemingly different users. For instance, if someone routinely doesn’t put spaces after punctuation marks. Like this, and this.
It also seems suspicious when someone who has just become a guest of the board already knows a lot of inside jokes like “Og” or “1920’s Style Death Rays”.
Or it could mean that they’ve just been reading a lot of posts 
And out of x million dopers here, what are the chances of two using the same style of punctuation? Quite high, I’d imagine
[boring droning voice ON] You missed a full stop off your last sentence. We have recorded your details. [boring droning voice OFF]
‘Homer,everyone has a fear of something’…
‘No I dont’
‘Sock puppets…’
‘Where…aaaarrgggghhh!’
Thanks for your interest, but please, if you have information or suspicions about another poster, please send us an email and keep it off the board.
For reasons that I hope are obvious, it’s preferable to do this sort of investigation quietly. I have looked at many people’s suspicions over the years. Some of them are justified and we appreciate the heads up. Some of them are not.
Because we can’t tell until we go look at the situation, it’s always better to publicly give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
That’s kind of a catch-22, isn’t it? The first thing new people are told is to lurk for a while and get a feel for the boards. Then they’ll demonstrate their feel for the boards by using an inside joke. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
I thought I heard John Edward was on staff. Or is his so-called ability to “talk to the banned” just a parlour trick? 
IP’s would be of limited use for a variety of reasons: non-static IP’s handed out by most ISP’s, still a large number of people using dial-up, public access points, corporate proxy setups, etc. Not to mention machines shared by people. I would also strongly suspect that somebody banned here may be getting in hot water elsewhere, including with their ISP, and may be forced to change accounts fairly often, or will do so simply to HAVE a fresh IP and get around IP screening any number of places. They will probably have to get fresh email addresses at an alarming rate for similar reasons.
I wonder if they try to look at email addresses, and flag usernames that look too similar to those provided by banned members, or things like free mail accounts that they didn’t have to pay a provider for. Those might be perfectly innocent, but might also merit scrutiny.
I get the impression that most sock puppet detection here is based on message content analysis by the staff following complaints. It might be mildly hazardous to suggest this, but I would also suspect there’s a few socks they don’t know about because the person hasn’t done anything objectionable under the sock login. I can see somebody having one of those huge, grand meltdowns resulting in their getting banned, then sneaking back in 6 months later under a fresh email address, being very careful to behave themselves, and not provide any direct linkage to their previous persona. Yes, there are rules, and they were supposed to petition for reinstatement, but if they are actually keeping their nose clean, who’s going to know? MOST of the time, the poster does exactly the same crap under the sock login that they did under their original login, and gets spotted.
Ok, I should have realized that of course you can’t tell me the ways you watch out for them, because then they would know how to subvert them. :smack:
TubaDiva, I don’t have any suspicions about anyone.
And yourself?
The friend I was telling this to made a similar comment about sock monkeys. For some reason this friend is petrified of sock monkeys.
Thanks, everyone.
Another tipoff in these days of paid subscriptions would be someone trying to pay with the same credit card or Paypal account as a banned user. Recently six_personalities was asking for someone to front his subscription fee because he was supposedly non-U.S. with no credit card or Paypal account. In a moment of foolish generosity, I gifted his subscription. Within a couple of days, he was banned, apparently for being a sock.
I know, I heard about that lainaff and read your post. I’m sorry that someone would take advantage of Doper generosity.
He didn’t really take advantage since he wasn’t asking for a gift. My generosity was voluntary, and hey – it went to a good cause. But the fact that it happened serves as a warning for others. It’s possible that he didn’t intend to repay whomever signed up for him, thinking they would be reimbursed. There’d be no way to track him down.
There is nothing odd at all about being scream out loud terrified of a sock monkey. Evil, grinning little bastards, what with their sorcery and for penchance smothering you in your sleep…
We do take people on trust here in so many ways.
I’m so sorry this happened to you. I’ve tried to contact them as well, not a valid email address. So . . . there you have it.
I’ll try to see if we can’t do something about this. I’ll talk to Jerry. Laina, can you send me an email, please, copying any transaction information you might have?
Email: TubaDiva@aol.com
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
I wasn’t aware Og was an inside joke.In our family,it has long been the case that to avoid using God’s name,you substituted something like ‘Almighty Gorlummocks’ or ‘in the name of Gorlummocks’.I just assumed Og was a variation on this